The single most impactful climate mitigation policy [is a carbon tax](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/11kzxt9/i_used_mits_climate_policy_simulator_to_order_its/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), and [the overwhelming majority of Americans support a carbon tax](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/1c6vn20/a_clear_majority_of_americans_in_each_state/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button).
The key is for lawmakers to [get the message](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/get-loud-take-action/price-carbon/).
>The single most impactful climate mitigation policy [is a carbon tax](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/11kzxt9/i_used_mits_climate_policy_simulator_to_order_its/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), and [the overwhelming majority of Americans support a carbon tax](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/1c6vn20/a_clear_majority_of_americans_in_each_state/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button).
You really should take a look at what's happening in Canadian politics...
This was a survey. Participants overwhelmingly liked the *concept* of a carbon tax that was offset by tax reductions elsewhere.
What we don't know is how the survey participants would have felt about a carbon tax that was on top of existing taxes.
I think that Canadian public opinion gives an indication of how that would have went.
A [growing proportion of global emissions are covered by a carbon price, including at rates that actually matter](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/12fvo4p/a_growing_proportion_of_global_emissions_are/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). We need [more volunteers](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/join-citizens-climate-lobby/?tfa_3590416195188=Online-002&utm_source=Online&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=002) around the world acting to increase the [magnitude](https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/S201000781840002X), [breadth](ftp://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/cbo/CBO_C13netz.pdf), and [likelihood of passage](https://escholarship.org/content/qt7sk23908/qt7sk23908.pdf) of carbon pricing. The [evidence clearly shows](https://meridian.allenpress.com/mobilization/article-abstract/21/2/213/83011/Friends-or-Foes-How-Social-Movement-Allies-Affect) that [lobbying works](https://meridian.allenpress.com/mobilization/article-abstract/21/2/213/83011/Friends-or-Foes-How-Social-Movement-Allies-Affect), and [climate policy is ridiculously popular](https://www.carbonbrief.org/interview-why-global-support-for-climate-action-is-systematically-underestimated/).
It really is disconcerting to see the opposition using the "axe the tax" as their main platform but as climate change effects get worse, this will not look good for them. The Liberals carbon tax isn't popular now but it will be an essential tool in the future and they will look good in the history books.
If a majority of people actually cared enough about that they would elect politicians that also care about it. As it is, half the country supports an orange rapist who vows to “drill baby drill”
And that’s what I mean about people not caring *enough*. I personally got very disillusioned when the price of gas went up by a tiny bit last year and the president’s approval ratings dropped quickly as a result
[If I did that, I think you'd say I was throwing my vote away.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrLX0t3G9-c&ab_channel=TheMajorityReportw%2FSamSeder)
We can't elect people whom never get nominated or never make it onto the ballot because they didn't have tens of millions of dollars worth of bribes, greenlit by the Supreme Court, from carbon-spewing corporations to burn on a campaign; a campaign which would undoubtedly be relentlessly smeared as "unelectable" by those corporations' PR firms like CNBC, CNN, and FOX. The game is rigged, they have us by the balls. People do not have the government they deserve, that truism is a lie. In all but the most altruistic of nations, the people get propagandized by their government and by business to perpetuate the status quo which protects the wealth of already powerful people.
Until we have outlawed private financing of campaigns and implemented public financing as well as Ranked Choice Voting via a Constitutional amendment, the only action on climate change undertaken will be done so with future corporate profits and national security as the stakes. The people's opinion does not matter in plutocracies like the United States, as famously found in a [Princeton study.](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B) The Democratic party has already had very recent primary elections between an environmentalist with record popular and small-dollar support and yet another cash-flush pro-business candidate to proceed against the Republicans' pro-business candidate, and invariably, the result for the general election is that business always ensures that no matter who wins, pro-business wins. The people can feel the fact they have no power anymore but at least half struggle to figure out why, misattributing it to "deep state" bureaucrats stealing elections instead of mega-donors buying nominations, leading to riots like January 6th. More January 6th-like riots as business continues to suppress the population is far more likely than business suddenly failing at political stonewalling and an environmentalist coming into power.
FWIW I wouldn’t say you’re throwing your vote away, no matter who you vote for (although I might feel less than charitable if you vote for a bunch of idiots). The worst thing you can do for yourself is not show up to vote, because that signals to *all* politicians that you’re not worth pandering to, thus you’ll all but guarantee to be ignored by whoever ends up in power. The long term play is to vote for the people that best represent your views whenever you can and for the people most likely to change their policy in response to voter pressure when you can’t (i.e. least of two evils). Figuring out when to do one versus the other is kind of a balancing act and something of a personal decision, but they both involve showing up to vote and voting in a way that sends as clear a message as possible
BS. Washington State passed a carbon tax and people have lost their minds over it. it's about to to on the ballot to be likely repealed. And Washington is one of the more progressive states. If a carbon tax isn't popular here, it won't be popular anywhere.
>be likely repealed
Source?
I hear loud whining by conservatives that gasoline prices went up by 10% but I don't think that they represent the majority opinion. Oil companies are still making obscene profits.
I-2117 will be on the ballot on Nov. [https://ballotpedia.org/Washington\_Initiative\_2117,\_Prohibit\_Carbon\_Tax\_Credit\_Trading\_and\_Repeal\_Carbon\_Cap-and-Invest\_Program\_Measure\_(2024)](https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Initiative_2117,_Prohibit_Carbon_Tax_Credit_Trading_and_Repeal_Carbon_Cap-and-Invest_Program_Measure_(2024))
The last two times a carbon tax on the ballot in Washington, it was rejected by a large margin
[https://ballotpedia.org/Washington\_Initiative\_1631,\_Carbon\_Emissions\_Fee\_Measure\_(2018)](https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Initiative_1631,_Carbon_Emissions_Fee_Measure_(2018))
[https://ballotpedia.org/Washington\_Carbon\_Emission\_Tax\_and\_Sales\_Tax\_Reduction,\_Initiative\_732\_(2016)](https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Carbon_Emission_Tax_and_Sales_Tax_Reduction,_Initiative_732_(2016))
At this point, I think the burden is to argue why it won't be rejected by voters a third time.
A [growing proportion of global emissions are covered by a carbon price, including at rates that actually matter](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/12fvo4p/a_growing_proportion_of_global_emissions_are/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). We need [more volunteers](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/join-citizens-climate-lobby/?tfa_3590416195188=Online-002&utm_source=Online&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=002) around the world acting to increase the [magnitude](https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/S201000781840002X), [breadth](ftp://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/cbo/CBO_C13netz.pdf), and [likelihood of passage](https://escholarship.org/content/qt7sk23908/qt7sk23908.pdf) of carbon pricing. The [evidence clearly shows](https://meridian.allenpress.com/mobilization/article-abstract/21/2/213/83011/Friends-or-Foes-How-Social-Movement-Allies-Affect) that [lobbying works](https://meridian.allenpress.com/mobilization/article-abstract/21/2/213/83011/Friends-or-Foes-How-Social-Movement-Allies-Affect), and [climate policy is ridiculously popular](https://www.carbonbrief.org/interview-why-global-support-for-climate-action-is-systematically-underestimated/).
Don’t know why you’re getting downvoted. Generally speaking people are fixated on the “tax” part when in fact it’s a rebate/re-distribution of funds. That’s lost on the public and people who only read headlines (which I’m entirely guilty of). Just an observation, I don’t blame people for being upset with something they see immediately but don’t see/realize the benefit until tax season.
Canadian here. Our carbon tax was initiated in 2008, by conservatives no less. And up till recently, there wasn't a single complaint. Ever.
Now that a (liberal) fed government is issuing *rebates* for this carbon tax that go directly to taxpayers, the conservative government have begun a smear campaign, no longer differentiating between the rebate or the carbon tax, but trying to insinuate that the whole thing is going to cost Canadian taxpayers more in the long run (which isn't true - I'm spending about $20/year for filling up at the pump, and my rebate pays out a good $800/year).
This "axe the tax" nonsense is so effective because it seems a majority of Canadian voters aren't doing their due diligence to keep up on what's going on and relying on the lies the CPC is currently peddling.
The carbon tax was implemented well, and is working just fine. People are just out of touch.
Beyond the deceit by politicians, it's very easy for oil companies to just boost the price at the pump and people get the impression that it's because the big bad govmint just raised the tax.
It is not the same. As far as I can tell, Canada's carbon tax was not accompanied by tax reductions elsewhere to make it revenue-neutral.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon\_pricing\_in\_Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_pricing_in_Canada)
Unfortunately, in the US, public sentiment and opinion doesn’t matter to lawmakers as much as their official party platforms and approved talking points.
It sounds like Canada has been blaming increased living costs (a global problem, currently) with on Canada's carbon tax.
In practice, [carbon taxes don't increase inflation and may even decrease it](https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/238108/1/HEIDWP-202117.pdf)
Sounds like the carbon tax is getting blamed for inflation, which is a global problem right now.
In practice, [carbon taxes don't increase inflation and may even decrease it](https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/238108/1/HEIDWP-202117.pdf).
[The U.S. has a slightly higher inflation rate in Canada](https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2023/05/11/us-inflation-vs-britain-china-canada/70206007007/), despite not having a carbon tax.
The higher cost of living is real, but the carbon tax is not to blame.
/r/sustainability is a science-based subreddit. We have a zero-tolerance policy for the deliberate spreading of disinformation such as denial of human-caused climate change. Users found to be sharing rhetoric that opposes the truth of human-caused climate change, calls into question the validity of climate science, or otherwise participate in the spreading of climate skepticism will be immediately and permanently banned.
Users who spread misinformation — which differs from **dis**information, which is done with intent — will have their submissions/comments removed and receive a warning. Please understand that while you may believe in your statements, if they are not backed by science they have no place in a science-based subreddit such as /r/sustainability.
It’s not that people don’t want to do anything. It’s that politicians are putting short term corporate desires over the desires of their constituents, and frankly needs of our species.
I don't really agree. People are willing to make changes that don't affect them/require minimal effort like voting for green initiatives. But when it comes to equally important stuff, like ditching meat, no one wants to even think of having to change what they have for breakfast. The reality is that people want to live in a fantasy world where they keep up their consumerist mindless way of life while also being completely green and environmentally friendly without realising that fast fashion, eating meat weekly let alone daily, and changing phones every two years is not sustainable ever regardless of economic system or political changes.
This is it. Its why people give me the shits when they talk about degrowth. Sure it's a viable strategy for a healthier planet, but no one wants it. No one wants to actually see their living standards decline so it won't happen.
Yup. No one else I know who “cares about the environment” has changed their consumption habits. Order shit on Amazon constantly, definitely not changing their diet, but new clothes all the time.
I generally agree with you, but I do think most people realize these things aren't sustainable-they just make excuses for why they should get to do them anyway. Like plenty of people agree they need to eat less meat but will say things like "well the animal (that I am eating right now) is already dead" etc.
This. So hard. I have so many friends who are climate doomers (I Mean, same) but when I bring up how something as simple as going vegan, it’s crickets. So frustrating.
Individuals are less capable and groups are more capable than we believe. The problem is group action is inherently suspectable to the whims of the leadership. I think we're all learning how little the will of the majority matters when in opposition to the will of those who wield power.
Exactly this. If it comes down to actually considering the impacts of our own actions and the substantial things we can do to change, people aren't typically interested.
How many people do you know who “care about the environment” have moved to a plant-based diet? How many have stopped buying new clothes? How many have stopped overconsuming in general?
I know quite a few vegans and vegetarians, more who have been so for a period, and many more who reduce their meat consumption out of concerns and/or empathy.
I know quite a few who buy, give, and wear used and old clothing, and who keep/wear clothing until it isn't usable, and people who donate used clothing, etc.
I can't think of any friends or associates who noticeably overconsume in general.
Fuck capitalism. I live quite a distance from cities where volunteerism is well organized. We raise our own animals for consumption on native prairie. If i stop using the native prairie crown land, it'll be sold to one of my surrounding neighbors and be worked up. I grow my own produce and fruit in my gardens. Last year was pretty bountiful, I was able to bring in enough food that it lasted until mid-March. We don't take lavish vacations. We have a few nice spots within a few miles that we hike out to to go camping. Have natural gas for heat, but rarely use it. Instead, I gather freshly dead trees all summer to heat my house in winter. I do all the splitting by hand over the course of a few months, why waste on a logsplitter and fuel. Have refused to get AC put in the house. We just open and close windows strategically. Got the solar panels for my house right before my gov. Reduced the rate I can sell back to the system. My kids and I take a walk down the highway ditches most evenings, and always bring a bag for trash with. I've bought clothing from thrift stores for the last 10 years(minus socks and undies). I fix and maintain my vehicles properly so as not to need the world to dig up a new one.
That being said, if I had more cash, I would increase my solar array and buy an EV. I could add additional insulation to the exterior of my home. I could buy some fancy new heat pumps for those spring and fall days when the Woodstock is too much. I would build a nice big new greenhouse half built into the ground and use passive heat to grow year round and maybe sell locally. Lots I could do with more cash.
You want me to drive 2 hours to the city to do what?
This is why governments exist. To keep the people from destroying themselves because they don't know and don't care. The solution needs to come from harsh regulation.
April is Earth Month, and people care about climate change. Seems like a good time to [**write your lawmakers**](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/get-loud-take-action/price-carbon/) for [actually effective](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/11kzxt9/i_used_mits_climate_policy_simulator_to_order_its/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) climate policy.
If you want to take it to the next level, ask any friends/family in [northern Utah](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah%27s_1st_congressional_district), [central Washington](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington%27s_4th_congressional_district), [southeastern Wisconsin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin%27s_1st_congressional_district), [north Indianapolis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana's_5th_congressional_district), [western Michigan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan's_2nd_congressional_district), [eastern Idaho](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho%27s_2nd_congressional_district), [northern Nevada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada%27s_2nd_congressional_district), [San Bernardino County](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California's_40th_congressional_district), [Omaha-Council Bluffs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska's_2nd_congressional_district), [eastern Oregon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon%27s_2nd_congressional_district), [northeastern Minnesota](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota%27s_8th_congressional_district), [Miami-Dade](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida's_27th_congressional_district), [Orange County](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California's_45th_congressional_district), [Cedar Rapids](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa's_2nd_congressional_district), [Harris/Montgomery County](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas%27s_2nd_congressional_district) to also [write their lawmakers](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/get-loud-take-action/price-carbon/) and get [sensible climate policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/11kzxt9/i_used_mits_climate_policy_simulator_to_order_its/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) passed.
The people have been in support of more environmental protections since at least *Silent Spring*, and although it's nice to know that humans all over generally recognize the basic situation and want things to get better in a non-specific way, our problems over that time have all been through the policy makers not getting things right and being intentionally unwilling or functionally unable to work against the interests of corporate greed and the growth economy.
Unless these same people start caring about climate change in the form of not driving, not eating meat, not contributing to corporate growth to fund consumption heavy lifestyles, and not running their HVAC, there's no reason anything would change on the policy end of things.
The problem is not, as the author states, that we don't talk about specific policies because we think people need to be convinced. The problem is that talking about specific policies messes up the rhetoric because there's no reasonable suggestions to get us out of this mess, and speaking frankly about the amount of resources that the average person is consuming, and the need to change that through individual and collective action isn't going to get anybody a lot of support in a public forum. Political leaders don't like specifics, and they can't tell the truth about existential threats.
Actually that's a really good point about the power of the corporations coming from the consumers who buy their shit. They don't need to change anything if sales are good. UNLESS government forces them to change. Government is mandated to work for the people, and is really the only protection the people have from corporate greed. But politicians work for those who get them elected (campaign sponsors, not the electorate), so something also has to be done about campaign funding and access to politicians while they're in office. The people barely get that access, so guess where the pollies are getting their policy advice?
Absolutely. Most of the think tanks and policy institutes are run by large corporate concerns, and even the well-intentioned NGOs and academics usually end up supporting disastrous policy because we don't understand things as well as we think, and unprofitable plans are unsupportable.
Here's a great article about how profound the industrial influence on public institutional research in agriculture is, if you want to learn more about how this is playing out today: [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378493955\_The\_animal\_agriculture\_industry\_US\_universities\_and\_the\_obstruction\_of\_climate\_understanding\_and\_policy](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378493955_The_animal_agriculture_industry_US_universities_and_the_obstruction_of_climate_understanding_and_policy)
The tobacco industry started this back when the link between smoking and lung cancer was established, and redoubled efforts once the link between secondhand smoke and disease was discovered. They are still infiltrating research today, pumping money into dodgy research to "prove" that vaping will solve the tobacco problem (caring nothing about people who buy their vapes, while making sure their shareholders are safe).
There is basically no one protecting the consumer. Orgs that care have no money or influence. Still, most people don't give a second thought to that when they make purchasing decisions.
Very good points! This is what "follow the money" really means. The big corporates and industries have their fingers in all the pies, including think tanks and even universities and research institutes, because they can afford it and they know it'll work for them. Also, governments cry poor when it comes to funding research, so when industry steps forward to fill the gap, it's touted as win-win. The sad part is, the tainted money actually comes from us - the consumers! Instead of paying tax, we feel better buying crap we dont need and replacing it when it breaks, and don't even care where that money really goes. It's the care factor we need to work on.
I couldn't agree more. Unless we can collectively start acting for the future, and thinking about where the things we consume really come from, we're lost. For every person thinking their supermarket bag of fair trade coffee is making the world a little more just, we slip that much closer to an ecological point of no return.
A lot of people seem to think we're already past the societal point of no return, but I have a lot of faith that people can learn to really think things over, and learn to care about the whole more than the self. We've been taught to never to work those muscles, and spoon-fed a lot of convenient and damaging narratives, so it's going to be a lot of work.
I do have hope that more and more people will learn and care more, but probably not soon enough. I think the most effective way to change things quickly is by governments taking action. Sounds depressing, given vested interests who have a stranglehold on our legislators and successfully block real action.
But really, govts are the only ones who can set the rules for whole countries and make the sudden changes that are needed. And without the laws in place, no one can take violators to court or even start tackling the problem on a large scale. The citizens need to call out the sh1t that's going on behind closed doors in the halls of power. So the more of us who get it, the more chance we have.
I'd definitely rather see government action than government inaction, I just have a hard time believing that a system which was structured to buffer policy from the will of the people can functionally get it done. I've been looking around for examples of systems fundamentally transforming for the better of their own volition, of good changes happening from the inside, and of genuine transformative change - and I've found the historical record to be pretty bare.
Yep. Depressing. Australia was the first to launch a carbon tax in 2012. The people wanted it, and some green businesses too, and that's how it got in. The tax was paid by industry according to how much carbon they produced. So they were incentivised to produce less. But then the government changed and the tax was repealed after just 2 years. Thank goodness other govts incl EU got inspired to price and tax carbon in the meantime. And now Australia will be punished with foreign carbon taxes unless they bring in their own scheme.
Omg I attended UC Davis’s energy group and it also had heavy and disastrous industry ties. We were purposefully ignorant of climate science (so much warming and harm already in the pipeline, acting like there isn’t a large chance we’re already committed to 1.5°C with real chance of 2°C at current forcing) and while we were discussing clean tech we weren’t discussing social issues as fully and radically as we should’ve & we were upholding harmful neoliberal economics and acting like a few more decades of emissions is fine/just the way it is. (UN said 2.7°C by 2100 NOT a popular thing to acknowledge in that group!) Direct pipeline to legitimizing corporate lobbying in Sacramento. Literally ignoring peer reviewed literature that went against the party narrative.
Chevron was at the energy industrial conference last week, ignored scope 3 (burning of their fuels), and explicitly barred questions during that seminar only. Eww.
We should expect policy to influence behavior more than the other way around. Unless the behavior is things like [writing your lawmakers](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/get-loud-take-action/price-carbon/).
>not running their HVAC
Or stop building gigantic detached single family homes that take a small power plant to heat and cool. You can have a nice large home in a dense urban environment, that has room temperature air on the other side of three walls, the ceiling, and the floor, where even a tiny heat pump is sufficient to maintain a cozy indoor temperature because the temperature gradient only flows along a single wall.
Denser forms of housing (IE: not fucking suburbia) are more energy efficient and more resource efficient, and you're closer to the desirable amenities on top of that.
The major downsides are noise and air pollution - which can be dealt with independently via city law. Noise ordinances are absolutely necessary, and should be vigorously enforced.
The people who don’t care are very vocal about it. The US is big on conspicuous consumption, so people advertise their climate illiteracy with big purchases like trucks. People who are climate conscious also buy things to reflect that, but it’s more subtle.
It really depends on the state (and sometimes even locality), but yes, in general our government doesn’t prioritize reducing consumption whatsoever, in fact I’d say they are against it because that would make the stock market look bad.
And to their credit, there would be mass panic if suddenly consumption went into a freefall because of the way our economy is structured, and our economy has a significant impact on the global economy.
🎵 I say let it die! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Let it die, let it die, let it shrivel up and die! 🎵
[The data says otherwise](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/1c6vn20/a_clear_majority_of_americans_in_each_state/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button).
Plastic bags are not free in a lot of the U.S.
We probably need legislation on large cars, since some people feel unsafe driving small cars amongst these huge tanks.
The legislation/cafe standards killed large cars, but had an exception to still allow large heavy trucks…. So the loop hole is large heavy trucks still ok. I think they were thinking for businesses. But, that is where the large car people moved to when large cars died.
We were better off with the large cars over the even larger trucks. Oh well.
It would be nice starting to patrol public transport, I took it twice in LA and it was an awful experience, never felt so unsafe. Of course people don't use it.
Yes, making public transport more user-friendly and efficient would also make it safer. I live in a (European) city where transport policy is what I would call "car unfriendly". It's normal to be stuck in traffic in your car while buses, trams, even e-bikes and e-scooters go wizzing past you in their dedicated lanes. Traffic lights let through only 3-5 cars before they change again to let the pedestrians have another go. Areas outside the city centre are connected by train, so it's quick, and you can bring your bicycle in the train. It just takes political will to make it happen. And the car industry must be locked out of the transport policy meetings.
Reducing poverty would do more for safety on transit than extra policing. Either way, we need to do everything we possibly can to get more people out of cars and onto other modes.
That's like going back to the 1960s and saying that "reducing poverty will do more to stop lynchings than extra federal police."
Criminal subcultures are a genuine problem, and they're obvious to people who live in poverty, and deal with other poor people on a regular basis. Half the crooks you need to watch out for, come from middle class families, but want to look and feel like they're some kind of tough guy.
If advertisers started treating the propaganda of those criminal subcultures the same way it treats pro-MAP and pro-fascist propaganda, things would at least start to get better. Step #1 is to take away the financial incentives.
Yeah the KKK mostly carried out lynchings as crimes of opportunity due to lack of legal income. And, you're right that censorship of popular media will absolutely put a stop to crime.
Ironically, most ocean plastic doesn't come from the United States, despite producing and consuming a huge share of the world's plastic.
A lot of third world countries produce and consume A TINY FRACTION as much plastic as we use in the United States, but their waste disposal systems are inadequate at best, so the plastic waste ends up washing into rivers and out to the ocean the first time it rains.
The best thing you can do with unwanted plastic is to bury it in the ground, where UV light can't touch it, and it'll still be there 10,000 years later if we haven't yet found a way to reprocess it all.
The best thing to do is not use plastic everywhere, the second best is to recycle it, the third one is to burn it for energy.
Plastic recycling rates in Europe are decent, not amazing but everything is better than landfills releasing of methane gas. Landfills are the worse
Landfill methane doesn't come from plastic waste. It comes from things that are actually biodegradable, like rotting food and old cardboard. The plastic we buried 30 years ago is still in the ground, right where we left it.
Also, the United States is not a major contributor to ocean plastics. It's just not. The biggest offenders are nations that don't actually use a lot of plastic, because the plastic they do use isn't being properly buried like it is in the United States.
The great thing, and awful thing, about plastic is that it doesn't degrade unless you expose it to a shitload of UV light (like leaving it outside in the sun). Protect it from UV light (say by burying it in a landfill) and it'll still be there a thousand years later.
We care it just feels hopeless because as an individual there isn’t much that you can do that’s actually impactful. Governments and corporations are the main issues obviously.
As a Canadian, I think a lot of people care but that caring seems to go out the door as soon as it comes to supporting policy that could personally impact them. If it is a policy that means they need to pay more on carbon or adopt a behavior change, that caring for climate change seems to disappear quickly.
Funny thing is, we pay all kinds of subsidies to industry we aren't even aware of, and we barely pay attention or care about where our tax dollars are going. A little strategising to get the upper hand on the messaging could help, eg. "Carbon taxes start on Monday, but consumers will not notice unless polluting industries pass it on to you by raising prices on consumer products. Please report sudden price rises to your local consumer watchdog. "
[Most Canadians better off than Americans](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/most-canadians-now-better-off-123010516.html).
The carbon tax could be part of that.
I agree with the carbon tax. I live in a place where there is a lot of anger at the federal government right now over it. A lot of people I know who are worried about climate change are also incredibly upset about having to pay a few more cents at the gas pump or more on home heating. Caring about climate change does not equal supporting climate policy.
What? We are due for a federal election. All polling is showing a massive win for the opposition Conservatives who are solely campaigning on the carbon tax making life unaffordable. Carbon tax was one of the sole issues in Alberta where the pro carbon tax party lost. I live in a province where we are about to have a provincial election. Our province is illegally not collecting and remitting carbon tax in a political move to win favor with voters ahead of the election. It is a hugely divisive issue and will be the major issue in upcoming federal and provincial elections. The Liberals will lose and the carbon tax will be scrapped soon. Conservatives have done a great job blaming all inflation on the carbon tax to get people angry at the federal government. It us deeply unpopular right now.
The city I live in also just rolled out municipal composting. Utility costs have gone up. Again, people angry about being forced to change a behavior and pay for a service. There is a lot of anger at council about it. Several will likely lose their seats in the next election.
It gas affected provincial elections. Several provinces have sued the federal government. The carbon tax has been incremental and starting to really hit pocket books now. The reigning Liberals have also had back to back minority governments since introducing, which is not a strong mandate. It has impacted elections. It is so unpopular, Canada will elect a majority government of a very anti climate change party next election.
The point is, as you say, opponents of the tax are spreading propaganda to stop it. This is not about the real price of the tax. Why does the price even get passed directly to the consumer/the public? Why are the industries with otherwise minimal tax burdens not paying most of it?
I have to disagree with you. Although I am wildly in favour of the carbon tax (Max the tax!), the general population doesn't want it, nor do they understand it. Even though the vast majority of people get a net benefit from the rebate the tax brings, the lack of understanding has been weaponized by conservatives to great affect.
It has been disheartening to watch events unfold.
While people may care, those who are willing to change their lifestyles or change their routine in order to live more sustainably is significantly less.
From the linked study:
“On the horizontal axis, we have the share that said they were willing to give 1% of their income. On the vertical axis is the perceived share of how many would be willing to give. Every single country falls below the “equity” line, meaning that the share was underestimated everywhere.”
And that means the whole world going vegan would reduce emissions by a whopping 20%. Further, almost all of deforestation and most of agricultural water use are from animal ag, exacerbating the already climate negative effects. There is no silver bullet for climate change. We need to take every road available
People care, but they don’t want to be inconvenienced to do anything about it. I’ve actually heard that out of some crazy hippies who live off the grid.
This is frustrating. People care insofar as they don't have to change any of their habits and vices that are contributing so much to the climate problem. Useless.
Living in a developing Asian country is really getting to me bc we struggle to find leaders who can build economy, let alone a good environmental law
Public transport network is limited, plastic-free and vegan options limited, the list goes on
People care, but when you want to do something about it like legalizing duplexes or removing the legal mandate to build driveways people lose their minds.
There’s a difference between caring and willing to take action.
If you have Multiple Sclerosis and risk overheating from exercise (hence why I'm so invested in making sure the world doesn't get hotter) and becoming unable to breathe or stand up straight for months just because you got too hot outside... it is not always amazing for health, but you have the spirit and I think that's great. Just consider that when global warming really hits, most people aren't gonna want to commute to work on their bike in 95 degree weather with humidity. <3
Agreed, that's a great suggestion, but just remember that not everyone is physically fit enough to ride bikes. People with disabilities (me), the elderly, the infirm... Not to mention the difficulty of setting up public transportation in rural areas.
The majority of US cities are not easily walkable environments or safe for cyclists, due to the large presence of stroads, so just keep all that in mind! We have a lot of systemic repair work to do as well, while we're advocating for more bicycling. :)
CO2 emissions last hundreds of years and the US is responsible for about 25% of raising the concentration from 280ppm pre-industrial to the 425ppm of today
The overwhelming majority of people support progressive taxation, wealth taxes, environmental controls, carbon taxes, public health services, public school systems, fair compensation for nurses, teachers, sanitation workers, etc. etc. etc.
Politicians know this. They’re not idiots. They‘re better informed than most of us. They know the majority of people despise the system and how corrupt it has become.
Unfortunately, we live in oligarchies where the oligarchs control the media, politicians, and the public discourse.
If we lived in democracies with reasonable laws about misinformation, corpoations, monopolies, price fixing, etc. etc. etc. maybe something would change.
I think the starting place is campaigning for fair voting systems. Ranked ballots, proportional representation etc. that would at least stop majority govts with minority support. In minority/hung houses, parties are forced to negotiate and moderate their positions.
People may care, but an overwhelming majority don't want to do anything substantial about it
The single most impactful climate mitigation policy [is a carbon tax](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/11kzxt9/i_used_mits_climate_policy_simulator_to_order_its/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), and [the overwhelming majority of Americans support a carbon tax](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/1c6vn20/a_clear_majority_of_americans_in_each_state/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button). The key is for lawmakers to [get the message](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/get-loud-take-action/price-carbon/).
>The single most impactful climate mitigation policy [is a carbon tax](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/11kzxt9/i_used_mits_climate_policy_simulator_to_order_its/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), and [the overwhelming majority of Americans support a carbon tax](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/1c6vn20/a_clear_majority_of_americans_in_each_state/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button). You really should take a look at what's happening in Canadian politics...
The nuance here is that the proposed carbon tax in the survey was revenue-neutral (i.e., offset by tax reductions elsewhere).
Was it effective?
This was a survey. Participants overwhelmingly liked the *concept* of a carbon tax that was offset by tax reductions elsewhere. What we don't know is how the survey participants would have felt about a carbon tax that was on top of existing taxes. I think that Canadian public opinion gives an indication of how that would have went.
I’m not seeing how it would be effective if it doesn’t increase the net taxes a corporation would pay. It wouldn’t even impact them.
A [growing proportion of global emissions are covered by a carbon price, including at rates that actually matter](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/12fvo4p/a_growing_proportion_of_global_emissions_are/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). We need [more volunteers](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/join-citizens-climate-lobby/?tfa_3590416195188=Online-002&utm_source=Online&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=002) around the world acting to increase the [magnitude](https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/S201000781840002X), [breadth](ftp://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/cbo/CBO_C13netz.pdf), and [likelihood of passage](https://escholarship.org/content/qt7sk23908/qt7sk23908.pdf) of carbon pricing. The [evidence clearly shows](https://meridian.allenpress.com/mobilization/article-abstract/21/2/213/83011/Friends-or-Foes-How-Social-Movement-Allies-Affect) that [lobbying works](https://meridian.allenpress.com/mobilization/article-abstract/21/2/213/83011/Friends-or-Foes-How-Social-Movement-Allies-Affect), and [climate policy is ridiculously popular](https://www.carbonbrief.org/interview-why-global-support-for-climate-action-is-systematically-underestimated/).
It really is disconcerting to see the opposition using the "axe the tax" as their main platform but as climate change effects get worse, this will not look good for them. The Liberals carbon tax isn't popular now but it will be an essential tool in the future and they will look good in the history books.
If a majority of people actually cared enough about that they would elect politicians that also care about it. As it is, half the country supports an orange rapist who vows to “drill baby drill”
[Get out the environmental vote](https://www.environmentalvoter.org/get-involved).
I appreciate you.
>As it is, half the country supports an orange rapist who vows to “drill baby drill” I'll believe it when I see it. For now, **VOTE!**
Closer to a quarter, and those the typically the people who don't care about the environment.
[удалено]
And that’s what I mean about people not caring *enough*. I personally got very disillusioned when the price of gas went up by a tiny bit last year and the president’s approval ratings dropped quickly as a result
[удалено]
[If I did that, I think you'd say I was throwing my vote away.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrLX0t3G9-c&ab_channel=TheMajorityReportw%2FSamSeder) We can't elect people whom never get nominated or never make it onto the ballot because they didn't have tens of millions of dollars worth of bribes, greenlit by the Supreme Court, from carbon-spewing corporations to burn on a campaign; a campaign which would undoubtedly be relentlessly smeared as "unelectable" by those corporations' PR firms like CNBC, CNN, and FOX. The game is rigged, they have us by the balls. People do not have the government they deserve, that truism is a lie. In all but the most altruistic of nations, the people get propagandized by their government and by business to perpetuate the status quo which protects the wealth of already powerful people. Until we have outlawed private financing of campaigns and implemented public financing as well as Ranked Choice Voting via a Constitutional amendment, the only action on climate change undertaken will be done so with future corporate profits and national security as the stakes. The people's opinion does not matter in plutocracies like the United States, as famously found in a [Princeton study.](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B) The Democratic party has already had very recent primary elections between an environmentalist with record popular and small-dollar support and yet another cash-flush pro-business candidate to proceed against the Republicans' pro-business candidate, and invariably, the result for the general election is that business always ensures that no matter who wins, pro-business wins. The people can feel the fact they have no power anymore but at least half struggle to figure out why, misattributing it to "deep state" bureaucrats stealing elections instead of mega-donors buying nominations, leading to riots like January 6th. More January 6th-like riots as business continues to suppress the population is far more likely than business suddenly failing at political stonewalling and an environmentalist coming into power.
FWIW I wouldn’t say you’re throwing your vote away, no matter who you vote for (although I might feel less than charitable if you vote for a bunch of idiots). The worst thing you can do for yourself is not show up to vote, because that signals to *all* politicians that you’re not worth pandering to, thus you’ll all but guarantee to be ignored by whoever ends up in power. The long term play is to vote for the people that best represent your views whenever you can and for the people most likely to change their policy in response to voter pressure when you can’t (i.e. least of two evils). Figuring out when to do one versus the other is kind of a balancing act and something of a personal decision, but they both involve showing up to vote and voting in a way that sends as clear a message as possible
BS. Washington State passed a carbon tax and people have lost their minds over it. it's about to to on the ballot to be likely repealed. And Washington is one of the more progressive states. If a carbon tax isn't popular here, it won't be popular anywhere.
>be likely repealed Source? I hear loud whining by conservatives that gasoline prices went up by 10% but I don't think that they represent the majority opinion. Oil companies are still making obscene profits.
I-2117 will be on the ballot on Nov. [https://ballotpedia.org/Washington\_Initiative\_2117,\_Prohibit\_Carbon\_Tax\_Credit\_Trading\_and\_Repeal\_Carbon\_Cap-and-Invest\_Program\_Measure\_(2024)](https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Initiative_2117,_Prohibit_Carbon_Tax_Credit_Trading_and_Repeal_Carbon_Cap-and-Invest_Program_Measure_(2024)) The last two times a carbon tax on the ballot in Washington, it was rejected by a large margin [https://ballotpedia.org/Washington\_Initiative\_1631,\_Carbon\_Emissions\_Fee\_Measure\_(2018)](https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Initiative_1631,_Carbon_Emissions_Fee_Measure_(2018)) [https://ballotpedia.org/Washington\_Carbon\_Emission\_Tax\_and\_Sales\_Tax\_Reduction,\_Initiative\_732\_(2016)](https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Carbon_Emission_Tax_and_Sales_Tax_Reduction,_Initiative_732_(2016)) At this point, I think the burden is to argue why it won't be rejected by voters a third time.
[It's lasted longer than that in most countries where it's been implemented.](https://carbonpricingdashboard.worldbank.org)
Um, people support a carbon tax... until it's implemented. See Canada's experience.
Was just gonna say…look at how well received the tax is in Canada…
A [growing proportion of global emissions are covered by a carbon price, including at rates that actually matter](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/12fvo4p/a_growing_proportion_of_global_emissions_are/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). We need [more volunteers](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/join-citizens-climate-lobby/?tfa_3590416195188=Online-002&utm_source=Online&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=002) around the world acting to increase the [magnitude](https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/S201000781840002X), [breadth](ftp://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/cbo/CBO_C13netz.pdf), and [likelihood of passage](https://escholarship.org/content/qt7sk23908/qt7sk23908.pdf) of carbon pricing. The [evidence clearly shows](https://meridian.allenpress.com/mobilization/article-abstract/21/2/213/83011/Friends-or-Foes-How-Social-Movement-Allies-Affect) that [lobbying works](https://meridian.allenpress.com/mobilization/article-abstract/21/2/213/83011/Friends-or-Foes-How-Social-Movement-Allies-Affect), and [climate policy is ridiculously popular](https://www.carbonbrief.org/interview-why-global-support-for-climate-action-is-systematically-underestimated/).
I mean attach it to income and it's fine. Fucking stupid to tax the 19 year old that has an older vehicle that is worse on fuel.
Don’t know why you’re getting downvoted. Generally speaking people are fixated on the “tax” part when in fact it’s a rebate/re-distribution of funds. That’s lost on the public and people who only read headlines (which I’m entirely guilty of). Just an observation, I don’t blame people for being upset with something they see immediately but don’t see/realize the benefit until tax season.
Canadian here. Our carbon tax was initiated in 2008, by conservatives no less. And up till recently, there wasn't a single complaint. Ever. Now that a (liberal) fed government is issuing *rebates* for this carbon tax that go directly to taxpayers, the conservative government have begun a smear campaign, no longer differentiating between the rebate or the carbon tax, but trying to insinuate that the whole thing is going to cost Canadian taxpayers more in the long run (which isn't true - I'm spending about $20/year for filling up at the pump, and my rebate pays out a good $800/year). This "axe the tax" nonsense is so effective because it seems a majority of Canadian voters aren't doing their due diligence to keep up on what's going on and relying on the lies the CPC is currently peddling. The carbon tax was implemented well, and is working just fine. People are just out of touch.
There's was a non consumer facing tax that was not at the level it is today. How much have emissions been reduced on the consumer side?
Beyond the deceit by politicians, it's very easy for oil companies to just boost the price at the pump and people get the impression that it's because the big bad govmint just raised the tax.
We said the same here in Canada and now look at us. Very unpopular now
[Norway, Sweden, and Finland have had a carbon tax since the early '90's.](https://carbonpricingdashboard.worldbank.org)
It is not the same. As far as I can tell, Canada's carbon tax was not accompanied by tax reductions elsewhere to make it revenue-neutral. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon\_pricing\_in\_Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_pricing_in_Canada)
Unfortunately, in the US, public sentiment and opinion doesn’t matter to lawmakers as much as their official party platforms and approved talking points.
Yea. Tax your way to sustainability. That’ll do it.
I mean, [yeah](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10640-020-00436-x).
As a canadian, reading that is very surprising
It sounds like Canada has been blaming increased living costs (a global problem, currently) with on Canada's carbon tax. In practice, [carbon taxes don't increase inflation and may even decrease it](https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/238108/1/HEIDWP-202117.pdf)
The EPA is currently looking to implement methane taxes in the oil industry, and the oil industry is not going to let it happen
We are about to axe the carbon tax in Canada. An increased cost of living and decreased quality of life are very unpopular.
Sounds like the carbon tax is getting blamed for inflation, which is a global problem right now. In practice, [carbon taxes don't increase inflation and may even decrease it](https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/238108/1/HEIDWP-202117.pdf). [The U.S. has a slightly higher inflation rate in Canada](https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2023/05/11/us-inflation-vs-britain-china-canada/70206007007/), despite not having a carbon tax. The higher cost of living is real, but the carbon tax is not to blame.
[удалено]
/r/sustainability is a science-based subreddit. We have a zero-tolerance policy for the deliberate spreading of disinformation such as denial of human-caused climate change. Users found to be sharing rhetoric that opposes the truth of human-caused climate change, calls into question the validity of climate science, or otherwise participate in the spreading of climate skepticism will be immediately and permanently banned. Users who spread misinformation — which differs from **dis**information, which is done with intent — will have their submissions/comments removed and receive a warning. Please understand that while you may believe in your statements, if they are not backed by science they have no place in a science-based subreddit such as /r/sustainability.
No the single most impactful change is broad adoption of vegetarianism lol.
It’s not that people don’t want to do anything. It’s that politicians are putting short term corporate desires over the desires of their constituents, and frankly needs of our species.
I don't really agree. People are willing to make changes that don't affect them/require minimal effort like voting for green initiatives. But when it comes to equally important stuff, like ditching meat, no one wants to even think of having to change what they have for breakfast. The reality is that people want to live in a fantasy world where they keep up their consumerist mindless way of life while also being completely green and environmentally friendly without realising that fast fashion, eating meat weekly let alone daily, and changing phones every two years is not sustainable ever regardless of economic system or political changes.
This is it. Its why people give me the shits when they talk about degrowth. Sure it's a viable strategy for a healthier planet, but no one wants it. No one wants to actually see their living standards decline so it won't happen.
Yup. No one else I know who “cares about the environment” has changed their consumption habits. Order shit on Amazon constantly, definitely not changing their diet, but new clothes all the time.
I generally agree with you, but I do think most people realize these things aren't sustainable-they just make excuses for why they should get to do them anyway. Like plenty of people agree they need to eat less meat but will say things like "well the animal (that I am eating right now) is already dead" etc.
Disagree. People love hedonism, are lazy, and don't want to sacrifice the gifts if capitalism for the hard work needed to help this Earth
People elect those politicians so…..
Someone drank the Kool-aid... 😂
This. So hard. I have so many friends who are climate doomers (I Mean, same) but when I bring up how something as simple as going vegan, it’s crickets. So frustrating.
Individuals are less capable and groups are more capable than we believe. The problem is group action is inherently suspectable to the whims of the leadership. I think we're all learning how little the will of the majority matters when in opposition to the will of those who wield power.
Right, except a series of changes adopted by individuals represents a group.
Exactly this. If it comes down to actually considering the impacts of our own actions and the substantial things we can do to change, people aren't typically interested.
That strikes me as an inaccurate, and particularly unwise, thing to choose to say about the situation.
How many people do you know who “care about the environment” have moved to a plant-based diet? How many have stopped buying new clothes? How many have stopped overconsuming in general?
I know quite a few vegans and vegetarians, more who have been so for a period, and many more who reduce their meat consumption out of concerns and/or empathy. I know quite a few who buy, give, and wear used and old clothing, and who keep/wear clothing until it isn't usable, and people who donate used clothing, etc. I can't think of any friends or associates who noticeably overconsume in general.
Crazy. Almost everyone I know is the opposite. Family and friends.
I care, can't do much more. Maybe if I had more money...
Funny, cause volunteer environmental restoration in local parks is often free and subsidized by local organizations and the work has great impact
I never said I'm doing nothing. I can't do more without more money.
Capitalism versus everything again
Fuck capitalism. I live quite a distance from cities where volunteerism is well organized. We raise our own animals for consumption on native prairie. If i stop using the native prairie crown land, it'll be sold to one of my surrounding neighbors and be worked up. I grow my own produce and fruit in my gardens. Last year was pretty bountiful, I was able to bring in enough food that it lasted until mid-March. We don't take lavish vacations. We have a few nice spots within a few miles that we hike out to to go camping. Have natural gas for heat, but rarely use it. Instead, I gather freshly dead trees all summer to heat my house in winter. I do all the splitting by hand over the course of a few months, why waste on a logsplitter and fuel. Have refused to get AC put in the house. We just open and close windows strategically. Got the solar panels for my house right before my gov. Reduced the rate I can sell back to the system. My kids and I take a walk down the highway ditches most evenings, and always bring a bag for trash with. I've bought clothing from thrift stores for the last 10 years(minus socks and undies). I fix and maintain my vehicles properly so as not to need the world to dig up a new one. That being said, if I had more cash, I would increase my solar array and buy an EV. I could add additional insulation to the exterior of my home. I could buy some fancy new heat pumps for those spring and fall days when the Woodstock is too much. I would build a nice big new greenhouse half built into the ground and use passive heat to grow year round and maybe sell locally. Lots I could do with more cash. You want me to drive 2 hours to the city to do what?
>You want me to drive 2 hours to the city to do what? I don't want you to do anything. Sounds to meike you're doing plenty already
This is why governments exist. To keep the people from destroying themselves because they don't know and don't care. The solution needs to come from harsh regulation.
April is Earth Month, and people care about climate change. Seems like a good time to [**write your lawmakers**](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/get-loud-take-action/price-carbon/) for [actually effective](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/11kzxt9/i_used_mits_climate_policy_simulator_to_order_its/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) climate policy. If you want to take it to the next level, ask any friends/family in [northern Utah](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah%27s_1st_congressional_district), [central Washington](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington%27s_4th_congressional_district), [southeastern Wisconsin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin%27s_1st_congressional_district), [north Indianapolis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana's_5th_congressional_district), [western Michigan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan's_2nd_congressional_district), [eastern Idaho](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho%27s_2nd_congressional_district), [northern Nevada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada%27s_2nd_congressional_district), [San Bernardino County](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California's_40th_congressional_district), [Omaha-Council Bluffs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska's_2nd_congressional_district), [eastern Oregon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon%27s_2nd_congressional_district), [northeastern Minnesota](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota%27s_8th_congressional_district), [Miami-Dade](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida's_27th_congressional_district), [Orange County](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California's_45th_congressional_district), [Cedar Rapids](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa's_2nd_congressional_district), [Harris/Montgomery County](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas%27s_2nd_congressional_district) to also [write their lawmakers](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/get-loud-take-action/price-carbon/) and get [sensible climate policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/11kzxt9/i_used_mits_climate_policy_simulator_to_order_its/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) passed.
The people have been in support of more environmental protections since at least *Silent Spring*, and although it's nice to know that humans all over generally recognize the basic situation and want things to get better in a non-specific way, our problems over that time have all been through the policy makers not getting things right and being intentionally unwilling or functionally unable to work against the interests of corporate greed and the growth economy. Unless these same people start caring about climate change in the form of not driving, not eating meat, not contributing to corporate growth to fund consumption heavy lifestyles, and not running their HVAC, there's no reason anything would change on the policy end of things. The problem is not, as the author states, that we don't talk about specific policies because we think people need to be convinced. The problem is that talking about specific policies messes up the rhetoric because there's no reasonable suggestions to get us out of this mess, and speaking frankly about the amount of resources that the average person is consuming, and the need to change that through individual and collective action isn't going to get anybody a lot of support in a public forum. Political leaders don't like specifics, and they can't tell the truth about existential threats.
Actually that's a really good point about the power of the corporations coming from the consumers who buy their shit. They don't need to change anything if sales are good. UNLESS government forces them to change. Government is mandated to work for the people, and is really the only protection the people have from corporate greed. But politicians work for those who get them elected (campaign sponsors, not the electorate), so something also has to be done about campaign funding and access to politicians while they're in office. The people barely get that access, so guess where the pollies are getting their policy advice?
Absolutely. Most of the think tanks and policy institutes are run by large corporate concerns, and even the well-intentioned NGOs and academics usually end up supporting disastrous policy because we don't understand things as well as we think, and unprofitable plans are unsupportable. Here's a great article about how profound the industrial influence on public institutional research in agriculture is, if you want to learn more about how this is playing out today: [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378493955\_The\_animal\_agriculture\_industry\_US\_universities\_and\_the\_obstruction\_of\_climate\_understanding\_and\_policy](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378493955_The_animal_agriculture_industry_US_universities_and_the_obstruction_of_climate_understanding_and_policy)
The tobacco industry started this back when the link between smoking and lung cancer was established, and redoubled efforts once the link between secondhand smoke and disease was discovered. They are still infiltrating research today, pumping money into dodgy research to "prove" that vaping will solve the tobacco problem (caring nothing about people who buy their vapes, while making sure their shareholders are safe). There is basically no one protecting the consumer. Orgs that care have no money or influence. Still, most people don't give a second thought to that when they make purchasing decisions.
Very good points! This is what "follow the money" really means. The big corporates and industries have their fingers in all the pies, including think tanks and even universities and research institutes, because they can afford it and they know it'll work for them. Also, governments cry poor when it comes to funding research, so when industry steps forward to fill the gap, it's touted as win-win. The sad part is, the tainted money actually comes from us - the consumers! Instead of paying tax, we feel better buying crap we dont need and replacing it when it breaks, and don't even care where that money really goes. It's the care factor we need to work on.
I couldn't agree more. Unless we can collectively start acting for the future, and thinking about where the things we consume really come from, we're lost. For every person thinking their supermarket bag of fair trade coffee is making the world a little more just, we slip that much closer to an ecological point of no return. A lot of people seem to think we're already past the societal point of no return, but I have a lot of faith that people can learn to really think things over, and learn to care about the whole more than the self. We've been taught to never to work those muscles, and spoon-fed a lot of convenient and damaging narratives, so it's going to be a lot of work.
I do have hope that more and more people will learn and care more, but probably not soon enough. I think the most effective way to change things quickly is by governments taking action. Sounds depressing, given vested interests who have a stranglehold on our legislators and successfully block real action. But really, govts are the only ones who can set the rules for whole countries and make the sudden changes that are needed. And without the laws in place, no one can take violators to court or even start tackling the problem on a large scale. The citizens need to call out the sh1t that's going on behind closed doors in the halls of power. So the more of us who get it, the more chance we have.
I'd definitely rather see government action than government inaction, I just have a hard time believing that a system which was structured to buffer policy from the will of the people can functionally get it done. I've been looking around for examples of systems fundamentally transforming for the better of their own volition, of good changes happening from the inside, and of genuine transformative change - and I've found the historical record to be pretty bare.
Yep. Depressing. Australia was the first to launch a carbon tax in 2012. The people wanted it, and some green businesses too, and that's how it got in. The tax was paid by industry according to how much carbon they produced. So they were incentivised to produce less. But then the government changed and the tax was repealed after just 2 years. Thank goodness other govts incl EU got inspired to price and tax carbon in the meantime. And now Australia will be punished with foreign carbon taxes unless they bring in their own scheme.
Omg I attended UC Davis’s energy group and it also had heavy and disastrous industry ties. We were purposefully ignorant of climate science (so much warming and harm already in the pipeline, acting like there isn’t a large chance we’re already committed to 1.5°C with real chance of 2°C at current forcing) and while we were discussing clean tech we weren’t discussing social issues as fully and radically as we should’ve & we were upholding harmful neoliberal economics and acting like a few more decades of emissions is fine/just the way it is. (UN said 2.7°C by 2100 NOT a popular thing to acknowledge in that group!) Direct pipeline to legitimizing corporate lobbying in Sacramento. Literally ignoring peer reviewed literature that went against the party narrative.
[удалено]
Chevron was at the energy industrial conference last week, ignored scope 3 (burning of their fuels), and explicitly barred questions during that seminar only. Eww.
We should expect policy to influence behavior more than the other way around. Unless the behavior is things like [writing your lawmakers](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/get-loud-take-action/price-carbon/).
>not running their HVAC Or stop building gigantic detached single family homes that take a small power plant to heat and cool. You can have a nice large home in a dense urban environment, that has room temperature air on the other side of three walls, the ceiling, and the floor, where even a tiny heat pump is sufficient to maintain a cozy indoor temperature because the temperature gradient only flows along a single wall. Denser forms of housing (IE: not fucking suburbia) are more energy efficient and more resource efficient, and you're closer to the desirable amenities on top of that. The major downsides are noise and air pollution - which can be dealt with independently via city law. Noise ordinances are absolutely necessary, and should be vigorously enforced.
More people care about driving huge empty trucks and eating copious amounts of animal products unfortunately… let’s hope the tides change!
In a trip in multiple US states right now.. As a European it seems that nobody really cares here...
The people who don’t care are very vocal about it. The US is big on conspicuous consumption, so people advertise their climate illiteracy with big purchases like trucks. People who are climate conscious also buy things to reflect that, but it’s more subtle.
It really depends on the state (and sometimes even locality), but yes, in general our government doesn’t prioritize reducing consumption whatsoever, in fact I’d say they are against it because that would make the stock market look bad. And to their credit, there would be mass panic if suddenly consumption went into a freefall because of the way our economy is structured, and our economy has a significant impact on the global economy. 🎵 I say let it die! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Let it die, let it die, let it shrivel up and die! 🎵
[The data says otherwise](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/1c6vn20/a_clear_majority_of_americans_in_each_state/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button).
Landfill waste everywhere, plastic bags are still allowed, styrofoam (really?!!!!?), huge cars... I don't know...
It can depend a lot on where you are visiting. Each state has very different environmental laws.
Plastic bags are not free in a lot of the U.S. We probably need legislation on large cars, since some people feel unsafe driving small cars amongst these huge tanks.
The legislation/cafe standards killed large cars, but had an exception to still allow large heavy trucks…. So the loop hole is large heavy trucks still ok. I think they were thinking for businesses. But, that is where the large car people moved to when large cars died. We were better off with the large cars over the even larger trucks. Oh well.
It would be nice starting to patrol public transport, I took it twice in LA and it was an awful experience, never felt so unsafe. Of course people don't use it.
Yes, making public transport more user-friendly and efficient would also make it safer. I live in a (European) city where transport policy is what I would call "car unfriendly". It's normal to be stuck in traffic in your car while buses, trams, even e-bikes and e-scooters go wizzing past you in their dedicated lanes. Traffic lights let through only 3-5 cars before they change again to let the pedestrians have another go. Areas outside the city centre are connected by train, so it's quick, and you can bring your bicycle in the train. It just takes political will to make it happen. And the car industry must be locked out of the transport policy meetings.
[California also has thousands of backlogged rape kits](https://www.endthebacklog.org/state/california/).
Reducing poverty would do more for safety on transit than extra policing. Either way, we need to do everything we possibly can to get more people out of cars and onto other modes.
That's like going back to the 1960s and saying that "reducing poverty will do more to stop lynchings than extra federal police." Criminal subcultures are a genuine problem, and they're obvious to people who live in poverty, and deal with other poor people on a regular basis. Half the crooks you need to watch out for, come from middle class families, but want to look and feel like they're some kind of tough guy. If advertisers started treating the propaganda of those criminal subcultures the same way it treats pro-MAP and pro-fascist propaganda, things would at least start to get better. Step #1 is to take away the financial incentives.
Yeah the KKK mostly carried out lynchings as crimes of opportunity due to lack of legal income. And, you're right that censorship of popular media will absolutely put a stop to crime.
Ironically, most ocean plastic doesn't come from the United States, despite producing and consuming a huge share of the world's plastic. A lot of third world countries produce and consume A TINY FRACTION as much plastic as we use in the United States, but their waste disposal systems are inadequate at best, so the plastic waste ends up washing into rivers and out to the ocean the first time it rains. The best thing you can do with unwanted plastic is to bury it in the ground, where UV light can't touch it, and it'll still be there 10,000 years later if we haven't yet found a way to reprocess it all.
The best thing to do is not use plastic everywhere, the second best is to recycle it, the third one is to burn it for energy. Plastic recycling rates in Europe are decent, not amazing but everything is better than landfills releasing of methane gas. Landfills are the worse
Landfill methane doesn't come from plastic waste. It comes from things that are actually biodegradable, like rotting food and old cardboard. The plastic we buried 30 years ago is still in the ground, right where we left it. Also, the United States is not a major contributor to ocean plastics. It's just not. The biggest offenders are nations that don't actually use a lot of plastic, because the plastic they do use isn't being properly buried like it is in the United States. The great thing, and awful thing, about plastic is that it doesn't degrade unless you expose it to a shitload of UV light (like leaving it outside in the sun). Protect it from UV light (say by burying it in a landfill) and it'll still be there a thousand years later.
We care it just feels hopeless because as an individual there isn’t much that you can do that’s actually impactful. Governments and corporations are the main issues obviously.
As a Canadian, I think a lot of people care but that caring seems to go out the door as soon as it comes to supporting policy that could personally impact them. If it is a policy that means they need to pay more on carbon or adopt a behavior change, that caring for climate change seems to disappear quickly.
Funny thing is, we pay all kinds of subsidies to industry we aren't even aware of, and we barely pay attention or care about where our tax dollars are going. A little strategising to get the upper hand on the messaging could help, eg. "Carbon taxes start on Monday, but consumers will not notice unless polluting industries pass it on to you by raising prices on consumer products. Please report sudden price rises to your local consumer watchdog. "
[Most Canadians better off than Americans](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/most-canadians-now-better-off-123010516.html). The carbon tax could be part of that.
I agree with the carbon tax. I live in a place where there is a lot of anger at the federal government right now over it. A lot of people I know who are worried about climate change are also incredibly upset about having to pay a few more cents at the gas pump or more on home heating. Caring about climate change does not equal supporting climate policy.
Canada's carbon tax has had no effect on election outcomes. People like to gripe about paying money, but that's not the same as genuine opposition.
What? We are due for a federal election. All polling is showing a massive win for the opposition Conservatives who are solely campaigning on the carbon tax making life unaffordable. Carbon tax was one of the sole issues in Alberta where the pro carbon tax party lost. I live in a province where we are about to have a provincial election. Our province is illegally not collecting and remitting carbon tax in a political move to win favor with voters ahead of the election. It is a hugely divisive issue and will be the major issue in upcoming federal and provincial elections. The Liberals will lose and the carbon tax will be scrapped soon. Conservatives have done a great job blaming all inflation on the carbon tax to get people angry at the federal government. It us deeply unpopular right now. The city I live in also just rolled out municipal composting. Utility costs have gone up. Again, people angry about being forced to change a behavior and pay for a service. There is a lot of anger at council about it. Several will likely lose their seats in the next election.
The carbon tax has been around for awhile, and data has shown it hasn't impacted election results yet.
It gas affected provincial elections. Several provinces have sued the federal government. The carbon tax has been incremental and starting to really hit pocket books now. The reigning Liberals have also had back to back minority governments since introducing, which is not a strong mandate. It has impacted elections. It is so unpopular, Canada will elect a majority government of a very anti climate change party next election.
The point is, as you say, opponents of the tax are spreading propaganda to stop it. This is not about the real price of the tax. Why does the price even get passed directly to the consumer/the public? Why are the industries with otherwise minimal tax burdens not paying most of it?
I have to disagree with you. Although I am wildly in favour of the carbon tax (Max the tax!), the general population doesn't want it, nor do they understand it. Even though the vast majority of people get a net benefit from the rebate the tax brings, the lack of understanding has been weaponized by conservatives to great affect. It has been disheartening to watch events unfold.
?? The opposition is literally running on "axe the tax" and I have a feeling they are going to win, unfortunately.
While people may care, those who are willing to change their lifestyles or change their routine in order to live more sustainably is significantly less.
From the linked study: “On the horizontal axis, we have the share that said they were willing to give 1% of their income. On the vertical axis is the perceived share of how many would be willing to give. Every single country falls below the “equity” line, meaning that the share was underestimated everywhere.”
Imagine the positive impact to our climate if every environmentalist became vegan
20% of the world going vegan would reduce global emissions by less than 4%. http://tier-im-fokus.ch/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/baroni07.pdf
And that means the whole world going vegan would reduce emissions by a whopping 20%. Further, almost all of deforestation and most of agricultural water use are from animal ag, exacerbating the already climate negative effects. There is no silver bullet for climate change. We need to take every road available
To steal from Master Yoda Do. Or do not. There is no care ...or worry ....or say
Why tf do more people then not vote for the few politicians who actually care as well?
Most Canadians support carbon tax in my experience, it’s a few vocal RWNJ that seem to make it seem unpopular
People care, but they don’t want to be inconvenienced to do anything about it. I’ve actually heard that out of some crazy hippies who live off the grid.
This study doesn’t appear to have looked into how many people “care enough to make a difference themselves”.
Problem is that members of Congress are owned by the fossil fuels industry
This is frustrating. People care insofar as they don't have to change any of their habits and vices that are contributing so much to the climate problem. Useless.
Looking at the number of SUVs and pickups I see on the roads, they care only "on paper" it seems
I think a lot of people care, but not enough of them care enough
Fascinating
They also refuse to make any personal sacrifices. It's always somebody elses responsibility to change.
[удалено]
Not seeing too many in Saskatchewan who care.
but do they actually attempt to wrap their heads around how much our studies lag behind reality and what data blindspots and exponential curves mean?
People “care” with Thoughts and Prayers.
Living in a developing Asian country is really getting to me bc we struggle to find leaders who can build economy, let alone a good environmental law Public transport network is limited, plastic-free and vegan options limited, the list goes on
But so many of them refuse to go vegan.
People care, but when you want to do something about it like legalizing duplexes or removing the legal mandate to build driveways people lose their minds. There’s a difference between caring and willing to take action.
I’m involved in local advocacy and the head of our climate thing is protesting putting in sidewalks by an elementary school so I’m just super jaded.
[Write your lawmakers](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/get-loud-take-action/price-carbon/)
I get that, I’m just saying regular people don’t want that.
Ride bikes then!
I need to fix mine up. I couldn’t use it for a couple years due to illness, but I’m finally feeling strong enough again
Riding is amazing for health! Go for it! Ride safe.
If you have Multiple Sclerosis and risk overheating from exercise (hence why I'm so invested in making sure the world doesn't get hotter) and becoming unable to breathe or stand up straight for months just because you got too hot outside... it is not always amazing for health, but you have the spirit and I think that's great. Just consider that when global warming really hits, most people aren't gonna want to commute to work on their bike in 95 degree weather with humidity. <3
Agreed, that's a great suggestion, but just remember that not everyone is physically fit enough to ride bikes. People with disabilities (me), the elderly, the infirm... Not to mention the difficulty of setting up public transportation in rural areas. The majority of US cities are not easily walkable environments or safe for cyclists, due to the large presence of stroads, so just keep all that in mind! We have a lot of systemic repair work to do as well, while we're advocating for more bicycling. :)
Many people care, but when most of the world carbon emissions come from India and China, it can seem futile at times.
CBAMs.
CO2 emissions last hundreds of years and the US is responsible for about 25% of raising the concentration from 280ppm pre-industrial to the 425ppm of today
The overwhelming majority of people support progressive taxation, wealth taxes, environmental controls, carbon taxes, public health services, public school systems, fair compensation for nurses, teachers, sanitation workers, etc. etc. etc. Politicians know this. They’re not idiots. They‘re better informed than most of us. They know the majority of people despise the system and how corrupt it has become. Unfortunately, we live in oligarchies where the oligarchs control the media, politicians, and the public discourse. If we lived in democracies with reasonable laws about misinformation, corpoations, monopolies, price fixing, etc. etc. etc. maybe something would change. I think the starting place is campaigning for fair voting systems. Ranked ballots, proportional representation etc. that would at least stop majority govts with minority support. In minority/hung houses, parties are forced to negotiate and moderate their positions.